From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161043AbWF0IVT (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:21:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161044AbWF0IVT (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:21:19 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:36629 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161043AbWF0IVQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:21:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:22:42 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Greg KH Cc: Nigel Cunningham , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Suspend2][ 0/9] Extents support. Message-ID: <20060627082242.GO22071@suse.de> References: <20060626165404.11065.91833.stgit@nigel.suspend2.net> <200606271539.29540.nigel@suspend2.net> <20060627070505.GH22071@suse.de> <200606271739.13453.nigel@suspend2.net> <20060627075906.GK22071@suse.de> <20060627081252.GC7181@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060627081252.GC7181@kroah.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 27 2006, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 09:59:06AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > Now I haven't followed the suspend2 vs swsusp debate very closely, but > > it seems to me that your biggest problem with getting this merged is > > getting consensus on where exactly this is going. Nobody wants two > > different suspend modules in the kernel. So there are two options - > > suspend2 is deemed the way to go, and it gets merged and replaces > > swsusp. Or the other way around - people like swsusp more, and you are > > doomed to maintain suspend2 outside the tree. > > Actually, there's a third option that is looking like the way forward, > doing all of this from userspace and having no suspend-to-disk in the > kernel tree at all. Yeah, but isn't that already in progress and swsusp being migrated that way? So really option #2. > Pavel and others have a working implementation and are slowly moving > toward adding all of the "bright and shiny" features that is in suspend2 > to it (encryption, progress screens, abort by pressing a key, etc.) so > that there is no loss of functionality. > > So I don't really see the future of suspend2 because of this... Well, it sure looks slim.. -- Jens Axboe